Why exactly is “free college” just a cute slogan? Economically it’s obviously possible, else countries like Germany wouldn’t be able to afford it. I don’t think this is an actual economic problem but more of a cultural problem in that you’d need to sell a big systemic shift to a majority of the people.
Whether or not Sanders would be able to deliver that, is something I can’t really answer. I have my reservations because I found Sanders’ campaign a little undercomplex on many issues.
I think it boils down to the question: Can America deal with a real social democratic candidate?
You mentioned wanting somebody with Wall Street connections and that just sounds like the usual “more of the neoliberal same”. It would be interesting to see a true centre-left alternative, instead of just another socially liberal but economically neoliberal Democrat.
Whether or not you can actually win elections with a European-style social democratic platform is another question I can’t answer. A few years ago I would’ve said no, but the success of both Sanders and Trump has shown how tired people are of the neoliberal economic answers both parties have given ever since Reagan.
[QUOTE=pjacks]
Well I voted for Obama twice, voted for Bernie in the primaries, & HRC in the general. So I dunno what ‘you people’ I’m a part of.
[/quote]
If you voted for Clinton by holding your nose to keep Trump out of the White House then why did you vote for Obama twice? Were you holding your nose to keep Mitt Romney out of the White House in 2012 and John McCain out in 2008? If so, what was the last Republican nominee you supported, if any? Are you claiming your a Democratic party supporter and were becoming Republican in 2016 until they nominated Trump? If so, what caused you to switch in 2016 prior to the Trump nomination?
That seems a really odd question. You seem to be holding that Obama and Clinton are so equivalent that it baffles you that someone would like one and not the other. Is that wht you’re saying?
I’m mainly wondering what happened in 2016 that would switch somebody who voted for Obama twice and Bernie Sanders, to only vote for Clinton by holding their nose, as this kind of implies they would have considered voting Republican if the nominee wasn’t Trump.
I can only assume it has something to do with Clinton, and I’m wondering what that something is. I’m also wondering if pjacks was planning on voting Republican after the Obama presidency but changed their mind after the Trump nomination.
The most obvious and immediate thing that comes to mind would be Clinton is generally seen as more internationally hawkish and interventionist than either Obama or Sanders. There’s probably a bunch more but you’re really asking for a big, complicated and personal answer from pjacks, istm.
Someone can also vote for a third party, not vote, or not vote for president. I’m someone who voted for Obama twice and only voted for Clinton because of Trump, if there had been a normal republican instead of the Orange One I would definitely have voted for a third party on the presidential ticket. When around 1/3 of eligible voters did not vote for either of the major party candidates, it’s a bit silly to argue that everyone has to pick D or R.
That’s a big part of the way I see the three of them. I supported Bernie even though I wasn’t in favor of most of his domestic programs. But I knew he’d never get any of them through Congress, so that didn’t concern me much. But on foreign policy, the president has a largely free hand. My support for Hillary, such as it was, involved a certain amount of nose holding-- much of it, but not all of it, because of her foreign policy history. If anyone goes back through the discussions during the elections, they will find quite a bit of nose holding among many of the poster here when it came to HRC.
And just to add: It’s pretty common for Americans to hold their noses and vote. Often, we have to choose between two not so optional people. Obama was one of the few I can remember voting for without reservations. And, in this latest election, Trump made it particularly easy to hold my nose. What’s a few extra wars (that HRC might start) when the future of Western Civilization is at stake!!
Kind of bizarre logic. I voted for Obama in 08, the 1st election I was old enough to participate in, because I liked the guy & by that point it was obvious that Republicans had created one fiasco after another. I voted for him again in 2012, because I continued to like the guy, and the Republicans had further devolved into a new level of Tea Party lunatics. Yes, he has always been more center-orientated than I’d like, but having a logical almost to a fault, scandal-free prez in the WH for the 1st time in my life was mostly enough for me.
I voted for Sanders in the primaries because I hoped any sort of success he would’ve had even without winning the nomination would help steer the party into more of a European-style social democrat direction. As opposed to HRC, whose “accomplishments” mostly consisted of supporting failed foreign interventions & not much else. It was also obvious to me that if such a divisive person were the nominee, she was incapable of winning a national election. Her husband’s accomplishments read like those of a successful Republican president’s: welfare reform, national anti-gay legislation, doubling down on the war on drugs & incarceration, & contributing to the loss of a House majority that was held by Democrats for over 50 years. I saw no reason HRC would govern any differently, especially due to the fact that she would be hampered by endless scandals, both real & imagined, just as she already was during the campaign. She ultimately represented a direction for the party that I did not want it to go in. You can scold me & mock me all you want, but 45% of democratic primary voters agreed with me.
In 2016, it was never a choice between a republican & democrat for me. I’m never voting for a republican for president, or probably any office, period. It was a choice between voting for the democrat, voting third party or not voting for president at all. Considering that the third party options were a bunch of loons, & the Republicans nominated Donald Fuckin Trump of all people, I couldn’t in good conscience not vote for HRC, the one person who had a chance of stopping him.
It’s really not that complicated, & there are plenty of voters who came to the same voting decision the way I did.
Thanks for the reply pjacks. I realize now that my post my have seemed more confrontational than I intended. I’ve not seen many, if any, Democratic voters use the term “held my nose.” I’ve mainly been seeing that from Republican voters who just couldn’t vote for Trump. So I apologize if I offended you, I honestly didn’t mean it that. I assumed (very incorrectly) that you viewed yourself as a Republican voter that voted for Obama and now just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump. That’s why it sounded so odd to me. Mea culpa. And again I appreciate the reply.
With no campaigning and no news coverage of the election, name recognition is a huge factor in this poll. For a large number of respondents its Sanders, Clinton, or Michelle Obama vs twelve people they have never heard of and know nothing about. Warren is slightly higher profile and so she gets a bump, but really this poll has nothing to do with how people are going to feel once the campaign starts up.
I just wish to point out that Dwayne Johnson (who no longer goes by “the Rock” in most cases) is rather conservative. He is apparently looking into actually running, but he’s not really a good choice for Democrats.
As for Sanders, while I don’t think he could have won, I think there is a good case that he lost Clinton the election. And, because of that, I don’t expect anyone in the Democratic party to like him. Having an approval rating now when he’s not currently running for president is not indicative of how he’d be perceived if he did.
He’d be far better as someone who pulls the progressives for a good Democratic candidate. Unlike with Clinton, make a case that they actually agree with each other.
For fuck’s sake, we can’t afford to have a progressive trying to pull the Democrats further left. Especially if we’re running against Pence rather than Trump.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I don’t consider it a “great debate” when one party is consistently demonstrating gross ignorance of the topic at hand, and responding to arguments supported by data with increasingly strident assertions of their own personal opinion, supported by nothing.
80% of Democrats like him now, which hasn’t appreciably changed since he was actively running. The “case” that he somehow lost the election for the candidate that he endorsed and campaigned for isn’t “good”, it’s delusional sour grapes from people who don’t want to admit that they blew the election by nominating a horribly unpopular candidate.
Why in the world would you think he wouldn’t have beaten Trump? All the polls say otherwise. You think his polling numbers wouldn’t have held up if he had actually been the candidate? Of course, it’s theoretically possible, but you have nothing to support that other than your own judgment, and if you supported Clinton you have already demonstrated that your judgment is awful (apologies if you didn’t support Clinton, but I’ve never heard anyone who didn’t try to make that argument).
I was on here all last summer desperately trying to convince people that nominating a candidate with a negative NAR was a terrible idea, and I got a lot of patronizing assurances that the polls didn’t mean anything because reasons. I was right, and the Clintonoids were wrong, about what would happen if Clinton were nominated. You’ll have to forgive me for assuming that I was probably also right about what would have happened if Sanders had been nominated.
The people who claim to be Democrats and hold a grudge against Sanders remind me of the whiny Clinton fans who vowed in 2008 that they would never vote for Obama because they had convinced themselves that the primary process was somehow unfair. IIRC those folks were also well represented on this board, but didn’t turn out to represent a significant portion of the actual electorate.
I think many of the names mentioned have a better chance of being the nominee. I like Sanders and would certainly vote for him if he got the nomination, but I think he either 1) won’t run, or 2) will lose to Franken, Booker, Warren, Biden, Newsom, or someone else.
I’ll give you a million internet points if you point out anyone here who successfully predicted either party’s nominee 3 years before any presidential election. Double points if it’s you.
*except Hillary '16! That’s one everybody predicted!
